OC Transpo

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Just look at how her supporters are talking. They are not listing achievements (in 4 years on the job), they are not listing achievements she had in Montreal. It is just blanket, vague statements like she is “qualified period” and then accusations of racism.

So accusations of her of being an unqualified DEI hire because she's black and OC is facing issues isn't vague? You saying "her job at STM was just technical" without any supporting evidence isn't vague? YOWetal saying she doesn't have "leader level transit experience" without any supporting evidence isn't vague? You can't be serious... Not only are those statements incredibly vague, but they're just plain wrong. This is selective reasoning and hypocrisy at its finest.

It really shouldn't be up to others to prove her qualifications and achievements in response to those making baseless accusations, but I and others have done exactly that anyways. You just choose to ignore it.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

3. Current GM was chosen despite not having leader level transit experience. We all know diversity was a factor. How much can't of course be proven. Though if proof is the new burden for this forum there will be a big drop in posts.

Once again, her job at STM absolutely was a leader position. I don't know in what world being a director in an organization doesn't qualify as being in a 'leader' position. She was the leader for thousands of employees and assets, and numerous projects and programs...

And if you're going to assert Ottawa hired an unqualified transit GM because of DEI policies, then yes, such a serious accusation should carry the burden of supporting evidence. Otherwise, you're just saying, "OC Transpo is facing reliability and ridership issues, and the GM is black, so she must have been an unqualified diversity hire". It's a ridiculous reach that carries racist undertones, especially when we know OC Transpo's issues predate her hiring and all other major transit agencies across the country are facing similar issues since covid.

[rocketphish]

OC Transpo shouldn't be just for people without cars
I was a daily rider of OC Transpo, until I realized it no longer served me and it would be cheaper to own a car. That's not how public transit should work.

Céline Khairallah, Ottawa Citizen
Published Dec 27, 2024 • Last updated 17 hours ago • 3 minute read

As a newcomer to Ottawa, living in Centretown, I depended on OC Transpo for transportation during my first three years in the city. Now that I have a car, I find myself never using public transit, preferring to drive or walk instead.

Why is it so? Is Ottawa public transit only for those who do not have a car or do not drive? It seems that public transit is solving a big problem for those without any other option, but once the option presents itself, the user will switch without looking back. It is a shame and a missed opportunity, for both the citizens and the city.

I am a fervent defender of mobility and freedom of movement, and public transit has always aligned with these interests. If I could and it were a reasonable choice, I would depend on public transit alone and not drive, but the upcoming OC Transpo fare increases in 2025 and the shortage in transit offerings confirmed to me that, even as a resident of Centretown, if I could afford a car, the annual cost would be cheaper than combining public transit with other shared options such as car rentals, Communauto, Ubers and taxis.

Coming from a car-centric city with limited public transportation, I was initially happy with Ottawa’s public transit service. Despite frequent complaints from others, the transit system served me well daily, taking me to work, helping me visit family around town, and allowing me to access more affordable grocery stores outside of Centretown. This was when I had limited working hours per week, which gave me more time for “wasted” hours waiting for buses. “Wasted” is in quotation marks because I would much rather walk in cities, people-watch and daydream while waiting for buses than efficiently drive and tick items off to-do lists. But that’s called tourism. Back to our main subject: OC Transpo.

The monthly pass was particularly wonderful. I had access to the entire web of buses anytime; I could hop on and off without worrying about my pass balance. During my first year in Canada, in Ottawa, the Équipass allowed me to access public transport for less than $60 a month. As a couple, we paid about $120 combined for monthly transportation. However, as our income increased, our transportation costs rose. The adult pass now cost around $125, and I needed it to access both OC Transpo and STO buses for work in Gatineau.

In our second and third years in Ottawa, we also relied on Uber, Lyft and Communauto for occasional weekend trips. These services were lifesavers for trips outside Ottawa, but that meant we were spending a minimum of $400 monthly on transportation, and up to $500 if we kept the Communauto car longer or drove it further than 100 kilometres.

Ultimately, purchasing a car proved more cost-effective for our mid-income family. Ottawa, as a city, is indeed (and unfortunately) a car city and not a train/bus city for a busy and active family, even when one lives in the centre.

After three years of relying on public transport, this year I am missing the convenience of trains and buses, as a tourist would miss them and appreciate them, yet I am happy to have switched to a car.

The question now is: as an urban dweller, will I use OC Transpo services ever again?

Is public transit only for those who can’t afford a car, the student and the newcomer? That seems like a poor position to be in if Ottawa wants to be a sustainable capital with modern transportation. The key to incentivizing the use of public transportation is affordability and convenience — not just for lower-income people but for everyone.

The current price barrier-versus-convenience is significant, yet OC Transpo is missing an opportunity to attract occasional riders who use cars. Is there a way for the bus to compete with the car in convenience and for the price to be attractive? While some are asking for free public transportation for all, I wish OC Transpo would introduce occasional but abundant low-cost trip options: perhaps $2 rides on weekends, off-peak hours or Sundays, or better yet, a special pass for the occasional rider. Having a pass that’s already paid for makes it convenient to use without pre-planning.

Anything, really, so those who can afford to support the system don’t all end up leaving it forever. Such offerings could entice car owners like myself to use public transit more frequently, especially for the simple joy of train rides with children.

Céline Khairallah is a designer, artist and educator living and working in the Ottawa-Gatineau region.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/oc-transpo-people-without-cars

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

So accusations of her of being an unqualified DEI hire because she's black and OC is facing issues isn't vague? You saying "her job at STM was just technical" without any supporting evidence isn't vague? YOWetal saying she doesn't have "leader level transit experience" without any supporting evidence isn't vague? You can't be serious... Not only are those statements incredibly vague, but they're just plain wrong. This is selective reasoning and hypocrisy at its finest.

It really shouldn't be up to others to prove her qualifications and achievements in response to those making baseless accusations, but I and others have done exactly that anyways. You just choose to ignore it.

I am not sure how is a difficult concept that head of bus operations is not a head of organization position. No dealing with unions (except possibly on very specific issues like grievances), no dealing with the political level, no setting strategic priorities. I can’t find the job description online, but similar positions in other cities seem to have very specific and technical responsibilities (maintenance, scheduling, training, etc) and not head of organization type responsibilities.

And frankly if head of bus operations was such an important leadership position, why didn’t OCTranspo promote its own head of bus operations?

[Admiral Nelson]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I am not sure how is a difficult concept that head of bus operations is not a head of organization position. No dealing with unions (except possibly on very specific issues like grievances), no dealing with the political level, no setting strategic priorities. I can’t find the job description online, but similar positions in other cities seem to have very specific and technical responsibilities (maintenance, scheduling, training, etc) and not head of organization type responsibilities.

How about we recognize that supposed arguments about Amilcar being unqualified, without access to the OC Transpo job description and a detailed breakdown of her previous responsibilities, is agenda-driven speculative BS?

OC Transpo's fundamental issues predate Amilcar and the population doubled down on them with its political devil's bargain for lower property taxes. The personal animus toward her here is baffling. The 'diversity hire' dog whistle that targets her uniquely (in a way an equally-performing white guy would not) speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by acottawa

And frankly if head of bus operations was such an important leadership position, why didn’t OCTranspo promote its own head of bus operations?

Easy. The person running STM bus operations has a much weightier job than their equivalent in OC Transpo. And as a struggling operation, OC Transpo likely preferred bringing someone from a better performing organization to bring a fresh perspective. It would take an astonishing lack of imagination to answer this question without reaching for a candidate's racial background.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

How about we recognize that supposed arguments about Amilcar being unqualified, without access to the OC Transpo job description and a detailed breakdown of her previous responsibilities, is agenda-driven speculative BS?

If you don’t have job description and a detailed breakdown of her previous responsibilities how do people know she is ”qualified period,” or was that just agenda-driven speculation?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

OC Transpo's fundamental issues predate Amilcar and the population doubled down on them with its political devil's bargain for lower property taxes. The personal animus toward her here is baffling. The 'diversity hire' dog whistle that targets her uniquely (in a way an equally-performing white guy would not) speaks volumes.

I have never used the term “diversity hire.” I have no idea the conditions under which she was hired or who the other candidates were. But I think it is ridiculous we are not allowed do discuss her lack of leadership experience or OSTranspo’s many problems under her watch. As I said in an earlier post, if John Smith was hired out of a director of bus operations position and the organization had terrible results people would be asking questions about John Smith’s leadership.

[Admiral Nelson]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I have never used the term “diversity hire.” I have no idea the conditions under which she was hired or who the other candidates were. But I think it is ridiculous we are not allowed do discuss her lack of leadership experience or OSTranspo’s many problems under her watch. As I said in an earlier post, if John Smith was hired out of a director of bus operations position and the organization had terrible results people would be asking questions about John Smith’s leadership.

There's a difference between questioning whether someone is performing their job well, which is totally fair, and declaring without substantiation, as YOWetal, that Amilcar only got the job as a diversity hire.

Originally Posted by acottawa

If you don’t have job description and a detailed breakdown of her previous responsibilities how do people know she is ”qualified period,” or was that just agenda-driven speculation?

It doesn't take an agenda or much speculation whatsoever to defend Amilcar as far more than a diversity hire - other contributors have pointed out exactly how she brings a great deal of experience and substance. Moreover there's no evidence anyone bringing more to the table was interested in running OC Transpo. In other words, absolutely zero indication OC Transpo hired anyone less than the best available.

Anyway, the burden of proof is obviously on those slinging accusations someone hasn't earned their job.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

There's a difference between questioning whether someone is performing their job well, which is totally fair, and declaring without substantiation, as YOWetal, that Amilcar only got the job as a diversity hire.



It doesn't take an agenda or much speculation whatsoever to defend Amilcar as far more than a diversity hire - other contributors have pointed out exactly how she brings a great deal of experience and substance. Moreover there's no evidence anyone bringing more to the table was interested in running OC Transpo. In other words, absolutely zero indication OC Transpo hired anyone less than the best available.

Anyway, the burden of proof is obviously on those slinging accusations someone hasn't earned their job.

But every time somebody tries to question her performance or why someone without leadership experience was hired in the first place they are met with shrill cries of racism or bigotry.

Mancini was (legitimately) criticized all of the time, now nearly everyone who should be criticizing her has been bullied into silence.

Nearly every metric under which transit performance can be measured has gone down under her watch. The burden of proof is on those who say she is doing a good job despite this. What has improved under her watch? Is scheduling more efficient? Is the organization more cost effective? Has new technology been implemented to improve operations?

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I am not sure how is a difficult concept that head of bus operations is not a head of organization position. No dealing with unions (except possibly on very specific issues like grievances), no dealing with the political level, no setting strategic priorities. I can’t find the job description online, but similar positions in other cities seem to have very specific and technical responsibilities (maintenance, scheduling, training, etc) and not head of organization type responsibilities.

The concept you don't seem to be grasping is that not having experience in a specific position does not make one 'unqualified' for that role. It's called upward mobility. Many heads of transit agencies worked their way up through various leadership positions within and across different transit agencies before reaching the top position, just like Amilcar did.

Heck, just take a look at the career path of the recently departed CEO of the TTC, Rick Leary, for example. He worked his way up through the MBTA and was the director of bus operations and engineering (seem familiar?), then COO, before being hired as the GM of York Region Transit. But I guess he too was unqualified because of his 'technical' background?

Originally Posted by acottawa

But every time somebody tries to question her performance or why someone without leadership experience was hired in the first place they are met with shrill cries of racism or bigotry.

Strawman much? The issue at hand here is that someone claimed her to be an unqualified DEI hire, meaning she was only hired because of the colour of her skin and had no qualifications for the job, which is preposterous. No one here cried bigotry simply because her job performance was criticized. Get real.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Nearly every metric under which transit performance can be measured has gone down under her watch. The burden of proof is on those who say she is doing a good job despite this. What has improved under her watch? Is scheduling more efficient? Is the organization more cost effective? Has new technology been implemented to improve operations?

You really like strawmen don't you? No one here claimed she's doing a good job. We simply took issue with the claim that she's unqualified and only got hired because of her ethnicity.

You're the one making the claim that every metric has gone down under her watch. The burden of proof is on you. Prove it.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

The concept you don't seem to be grasping is that not having experience in a specific position does not make one 'unqualified' for that role. It's called upward mobility. Many heads of transit agencies worked their way up through various leadership positions within and across different transit agencies before reaching the top position, just like Amilcar did.

Heck, just take a look at the career path of the recently departed CEO of the TTC, Rick Leary, for example. He worked his way up through the MBTA and was the director of bus operations and engineering (seem familiar?), then COO, before being hired as the GM of York Region Transit. But I guess he too was unqualified because of his 'technical' background?

Strawman much? The issue at hand here is that someone claimed her to be an unqualified DEI hire, meaning she was only hired because of the colour of her skin and had no qualifications for the job, which is preposterous. No one here cried bigotry simply because her job performance was criticized. Get real.

You really like strawmen don't you? No one here claimed she's doing a good job. We simply took issue with the claim that she's unqualified and only got hired because of her ethnicity.

You're the one making the claim that every metric has gone down under her watch. The burden of proof is on you. Prove it.

So he was COO of the TTC (even bigger than STM) before getting hired as head of York Transit (which is a fraction the size 1/5 ridership. Bus only. etc.)?

Nobody said she only got her job because of her ethnicity but certainly that was a key part of the decision. Are you actually claiming it wasn't But yeah it's just a happy coincidence. A streak of women ( TTC will surely have a women or person of color as their next ) being promoted to head Canada's transit agencies. It's kind of hilarious you aren't even claiming she is doing a good job as you defend her.

All that said while we discuss the key thing OCTranspo needs is more funding and as such you want someone who can lobby for that it's very likely that's the kind of person Watson didn't want and her applying was a way to bureaucratic jujitsu out of someone coming in who would demand more. That's not a slight against her but a simple fact.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

So he was COO of the TTC (even bigger than STM) before getting hired as head of York Transit (which is a fraction the size 1/5 ridership. Bus only. etc.)?

He was COO (not CEO/GM) of the MBTA before being hired as GM of YRT, which is very similar to the transition Amilcar made from STM to OCT. He went to the TTC after YRT.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Nobody said she only got her job because of her ethnicity but certainly that was a key part of the decision. Are you actually claiming it wasn't But yeah it's just a happy coincidence. A streak of women ( TTC will surely have a women or person of color as their next ) being promoted to head Canada's transit agencies. It's kind of hilarious you aren't even claiming she is doing a good job as you defend her.

No, that's exactly what you said. Your exact words were, "she was chosen for DEI reasons".

I'm defending her as being qualified for the job and not simply being a DEI hire as you put it. Her job performance is an entire different question, but I don't think you nor I know enough about OC's internal operations to have an informed opinion on that. For all we know, she's doing the best job possible given the resources available to her.

Originally Posted by YOWetal

All that said while we discuss the key thing OCTranspo needs is more funding and as such you want someone who can lobby for that it's very likely that's the kind of person Watson didn't want and her applying was a way to bureaucratic jujitsu out of someone coming in who would demand more. That's not a slight against her but a simple fact.

Sounds more like an opinion than a fact. Do you really think lobbying Council publicly will go over well for her or anyone else in her position? Some councillors are already finger pointing and scapegoating her knowing full well that lack of funding is the issue, which they are accountable for. Lobbying council for more funding would be like pointing the finger back and blaming them for OC Transpo's woes. It'd be a bad look and a lose-lose situation for her anyway you look at it.

Given the political circus she has to navigate, I think she's done the right thing by taking active measures to trim operating costs wherever possible and communicating those changes to council, as well as continuing to report ridership/revenue shortfalls and ongoing operational challenges with the resources available, all of which clearly signals a need for more funding without explicitly saying it. Not to mention that she has publicly lobbied the federal government for more funding.

[phil235]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Given the political circus she has to navigate, I think she's done the right thing by taking active measures to trim operating costs wherever possible and communicating those changes to council, as well as continuing to report ridership/revenue shortfalls and ongoing operational challenges with the resources available, all of which clearly signals a need for more funding without explicitly saying it. Not to mention that she has publicly lobbied the federal government for more funding.

I think where she and OC Transpo have obviously failed is in communication with the public. As a new face coming in, she had a great opportunity to shake things up in terms of client-service orientation and increased transparency. Those things clearly haven’t happened, and my personal impression at least is that she is a very poor communicator in the media. For an organization desperately in need of an image revamp, they have missed the boat entirely. She is the head of the agency, so ultimately she bears responsibility for that.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

He was COO (not CEO/GM) of the MBTA before being hired as GM of YRT, which is very similar to the transition Amilcar made from STM to OCT. He went to the TTC after YRT.



No, that's exactly what you said. Your exact words were, "she was chosen for DEI reasons".

I'm defending her as being qualified for the job and not simply being a DEI hire as you put it. Her job performance is an entire different question, but I don't think you nor I know enough about OC's internal operations to have an informed opinion on that. For all we know, she's doing the best job possible given the resources available to her.

Sounds more like an opinion than a fact. Do you really think lobbying Council publicly will go over well for her or anyone else in her position? Some councillors are already finger pointing and scapegoating her knowing full well that lack of funding is the issue, which they are accountable for. Lobbying council for more funding would be like pointing the finger back and blaming them for OC Transpo's woes. It'd be a bad look and a lose-lose situation for her anyway you look at it.

Given the political circus she has to navigate, I think she's done the right thing by taking active measures to trim operating costs wherever possible and communicating those changes to council, as well as continuing to report ridership/revenue shortfalls and ongoing operational challenges with the resources available, all of which clearly signals a need for more funding without explicitly saying it. Not to mention that she has publicly lobbied the federal government for more funding.

So he went from COO which is transit wide leadership position in a huge transit system to CEO at York transit. That is not the same as getting the job at OCTranspo coming from Head of bus in Montreal (also of course a big system) which as I said is 4-5 times larger. Has LRT etc.

Equity was a part of her hiring process but yes she isn't completely unqualified or hired only because of her ethnicity (or gender) and as Watson tweeted (with her picture) she was managing a big program (5300 report to her in his words) in Montreal. But not the Metro which is where we were in crisis. Not at a leadership level which is what you'd expect for a $340k job (which is very competitive salary in North America transit circles). It was also at the same time we literally over-ruled staff and expanded the city because of partial Indigenous ownership. Watson was legacy building on equity so while it is opinion it seems pretty clear that was part of the decision process.

I actually agree that mostly she is doing the best she can but lobbying the Federal government at a conference isn't exactly proof of leadership on that file. She has been in the job for sometime now. It seems she turned down recruiters salivating at her profile to hire her for a big US system so it seems she wants to retire here so hopefully she steps up and challenges council to give her more help.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by phil235

I think where she and OC Transpo have obviously failed is in communication with the public. As a new face coming in, she had a great opportunity to shake things up in terms of client-service orientation and increased transparency. Those things clearly haven’t happened, and my personal impression at least is that she is a very poor communicator in the media. For an organization desperately in need of an image revamp, they have missed the boat entirely. She is the head of the agency, so ultimately she bears responsibility for that.

Are you referring to anything specific or just general? If we're talking about stuff like bus service impacts and Line 1 shutdowns, I generally agree that communication has been poor. OTOH, if you're referring to launch date announcements for Stage 2 extensions, I think people's expectations on that have been unreasonable. Amilcar and OC in general seem to be operating on lessons learned from Stage 1. The city promised launch dates only to delay multiple times and ultimately rushed to launch Stage 1 before the system was ready, which was a big mistake that did a lot of damage to public trust. Being more cautious this time around and tempering the public's expectations is a much better approach in my opinion, even if the uncertainty is frustrating.

[rocketphish]

Ottawa's public transit costs are headed for disaster
The City of Ottawa is stuck with a costly rail system. It must figure out how to minimize the growing financial hole this is causing.

Randall Denley, Ottawa Citizen
Published Jan 07, 2025 • 3 minute read

The launch of Ottawa’s long-delayed southern rail lines seems like a good news story, but really it’s anything but. When the first train pulled out of the station, it started a financial drain that Ottawa simply can’t afford.

The main train line south and its connecting spur line to the Ottawa Airport are expected to cost about $45.2 million to operate this year. To put that in context, OC Transpo’s entire operating budget is $856 million, the largest amount ever.

While we know the cost of the southern train extension, its benefits are less clear. One would think bus riders would be using the train instead, but the city says it expects no significant reduction in bus operating costs this year. Its estimates for ridership of the new lines are pre-pandemic and considered out of date. The city can’t even say how much fare revenue the new rail lines are expected to generate.

The city faced a $120-million transit deficit this year thanks to increased rail operating costs and continued low ridership. To solve the problem, council passed a budget that increased the transit levy by eight per cent, raised fares and changed levels of service.

Even after all of that, there is still a $36-million hole in the city budget. If new money from the federal and provincial governments is not forthcoming, property taxes could go up as much as two percentage points or more and bus service could be cut.

The problem doesn’t end there. As the rest of the east-west LRT slowly comes into service, costs will rise. By 2027, when the full system is scheduled to be complete, it will cost $211 million a year to operate, up from $99 million last year.

Ottawa is facing a significant, long-term gap between transit revenue and transit expenditures. Last summer, the city estimated that amount at $8.6 billion over 30 years. This year’s budget moves will reduce that total but the gap is still massive.

It wouldn’t be wrong to say that Ottawa can’t afford its transit system now or any time in the foreseeable future. What should we do?

The path the city is on now is unappealing. Its two main features are higher costs and reduced service. It’s an approach that will guarantee years of complaints from transit users while delivering continually higher costs for both riders and property-tax payers.

It’s time for a fundamental rethink of what transit in this city is supposed to accomplish. We have to dump the simplistic idea that transit is good and more transit is better. Instead, start with how much the city can afford to pay and shape the transit system accordingly.

Despite their flaws, we are stuck with our rail lines. The challenge is to maximize the billions of dollars the city has spent on rail. That means eliminating bus routes that duplicate train service and focusing on routes that deliver people to train stations. Even those routes should require a minimum cost recovery. The cost of transit is supposed to be split 50-50 between fares and property taxes, so let’s say that any route should recover 50 per cent of its costs through fares. That would ensure that existing high demand transit routes are retained.

OC Transpo needs to stop chasing rainbows in the suburbs. According to the city’s latest figures, the number of suburban families who don’t have a car is in the low single digits. This just isn’t a likely place to find new transit demand. Meet what demand there is with buses on major roads that will deliver people to transit hubs and add on-demand minibuses to serve areas that don’t generate much demand.

City councillors really only have two choices. They can endure years of rising costs and gradually reduced transit service in the hope that demand will magically return or they can make the hard decision to create a financially viable transit system that meets clear and more limited goals. Only one of those choices makes sense.

Randall Denley is an Ottawa journalist and author. Contact him at [email protected]

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/denley-ottawa-public-transit-disaster

[OCCheetos]

So long as the city continues to brag about just how much lower its property tax increases have been over the past decade than any other major Canadian city, anyone saying that we "simply can't afford" any of this can't be taken seriously.

The problem doesn’t end there. As the rest of the east-west LRT slowly comes into service, costs will rise. By 2027, when the full system is scheduled to be complete, it will cost $211 million a year to operate, up from $99 million last year.

Unlike the opening of Line 2, which is largely a net-addition of transit service, the city still has the option of cutting significant amounts of service when each extension of the Confederation Line. Weird how none of that is mentioned.

Of course, we could choose to reinvest those freed up resources to bolster service, but I keep seeing people talk about how "broke" the city is and how we "simply can't afford" to. They couldn't possibly be wrong, could they?

[DTcrawler]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

So long as the city continues to brag about just how much lower its property tax increases have been over the past decade than any other major Canadian city, anyone saying that we "simply can't afford" any of this can't be taken seriously.



Unlike the opening of Line 2, which is largely a net-addition of transit service, the city still has the option of cutting significant amounts of service when each extension of the Confederation Line. Weird how none of that is mentioned.

Of course, we could choose to reinvest those freed up resources to bolster service, but I keep seeing people talk about how "broke" the city is and how we "simply can't afford" to. They couldn't possibly be wrong, could they?

It's Randall Denley... I'm pretty sure he worked his last two brain cells into the ground trying to understand the topic before he gave up and resorted back to the familiar "transit is bankrupting our city!!1!" narrative.

Randall is basically an embodiment of every CFRA caller in history.

[lrt's friend]

In the long run, transit cuts are bankrupting the city as we drive away large numbers of full fare riders

[rocketphish]

From world-class to worrisome: The challenges facing Ottawa transit
Exploring bold design solutions to transform Ottawa’s struggling transit network

OBJ
January 1, 2025

Sponsored by Architects DCA Inc.

This has been an incredible year for news. There are many contenders for Ottawa newsmaker of the year: Michael Andlauer’s Senators ownership and a new arena at LeBreton Flats; Tobi Nussbaum, NCC leadership and an incredible swimming season at the Ottawa River House.

I’d like to propose that the newsmaker of the year that had the biggest lasting impact on Ottawa is transit.

Ottawa was, not long ago, celebrated for its world class transit system. As recently as 2006, the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) made Ottawa the highest transit use per capita in the country. Then, cancelled transit projects in 2006 cost the city tens of millions of dollars, and decades of austerity budgets later, we ended up with the Phase 1 Light Rail Transit (LRT) opening years behind schedule.

LRT construction resulted in years of painful delays that snarled daily life for commuters and a service that was rushed into operation. Parts of Phase 2 were awarded to bidders who failed the technical score, but were cheap, and, like Phase 1, it is years behind schedule. Phase 3, LRT service to further outlying low density suburbs of Kanata and Stittsville is stalled with no horizon for next steps.

Through it all, OC Transpo has continued to weather the challenges. The drivers and front-line staff remain committed to public service but bear the brunt of public frustration with cancelled buses and delays. It is no wonder the agency has staffing problems.

Repeated challenges of non-round wheels, overly sensitive doors that caused system resets; an endless stench at Parliament Station; shut downs due to weather; derailments that have taken the train offline for weeks at a time; weeks-long maintenance shut-downs in the height of summer tourist season, let alone thousands of cancelled bus trips… the list goes on and remain a regular worry for those who depend on transit.

Layered onto this is a precipitous drop in ridership that has yet to rebound. While other cities saw ridership return to pre-pandemic levels, or better, Ottawa’s has not recovered because we haven’t put in the effort or resources needed.

The 2025 City budget continues the challenge: there is a $120-million hole in the transit budget; solutions include raising fares and raising the transit levy. Part of the cost of transit is the expected on-boarding of Phase 2 which will see higher operating costs as the system shifts from construction to operation. Thirty-six million dollars of the deficit is expected to come from federal and provincial coffers but there’s no indication that this is forthcoming. Raising fares is expected to add $15-million to the budget through a series of “nickel and dime” moves.

Behind this death spiral successive councils have created is a design problem. And we need a design problem to solve it and make public transit in Ottawa work.

As Brigitte Pellerin has written, the federal government’s “back to the office” mandate, coupled with LRT and transit unreliability has resulted in a parking problem downtown. Parking lots and garages are packed with commuters who can’t be bothered to spend hours on expensive transit that might or might not get them to work on time.

We could design policies such as a parking levy that could raise parking costs, redirecting millions of dollars towards transit to make it reliable and affordable. Eliminating free on–street parking and raising street parking rates could incentivize more people to drive less.

This is the fundamental concept of induced demand: if we make roads bigger and wider and easier to use, more people will use them. The opposite is also true: make driving more challenging and expensive, and give people a better, more affordable and reliable option and they’re more likely to use it and not drive for every errand.

Solving the transit problem needs to start with designing better funding: build it and they will come. That means a big cash investment now, up front to show good faith that the city is serious about fixing transit.

Every year, we budget hundreds of millions of dollars for road widening and expansion projects. The next eight years see us spending nearly $900-million on suburban and rural roads. What if we designed for the future we need, for the climate crisis we declare? Maybe, because of better transit, we won’t need all those road projects and can save money AND make a better, more affordable, city.

As Neil Saravanamutto wrote, while transit users are being asked to cough up $15-million through higher fares, the city budget allocates up to $22-million for Lansdowne. Is a public subsidy to sports teams and development a need or a want? What if we designed a better solution to Lansdowne with a focus on housing and public places not dependent on ticket sales.

What if we looked at the hundreds of publicly owned lands near transit identified in the Housing Assessment Resource Tool and started building homes through innovative, creative, housing projects, like Edmonton has done. This would stimulate construction, boost the economy and build the density transit needs to be effective?

Maybe its time to make better decisions, embrace design solutions, and start creating the city we aspire to be with a vision, a goal and a plan. Maybe it’s time to make better places for the people who pay the bills.

The death spiral of public transit shouldn’t be a newsmaker.

https://obj.ca/ottawa-transit-in-turmoil-rebuilding-trust-in-a-broken-system/

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Exploring bold design solutions to transform Ottawa’s struggling transit network

Behind this death spiral successive councils have created is a design problem. And we need a design problem to solve it and make public transit in Ottawa work.

Sounds promising let's see their bold ideas:

Originally Posted by rocketphish

We could design policies such as a parking levy that could raise parking costs, redirecting millions of dollars towards transit to make it reliable and affordable. Eliminating free on–street parking and raising street parking rates could incentivize more people to drive less.

OK sure. I don't think there is a lot of free on street parking near many employment nodes. Almost nobody uses on street paid parking for work. That would be a fortune at current rates. If we tax the lots getting them up to $30 a day then we could add to on street parking. What we really need is a congestion charge. This avoids leakage in parking and people choosing more and more to get dropped off or take Ubers to work.

Originally Posted by rocketphish

This is the fundamental concept of induced demand: if we make roads bigger and wider and easier to use, more people will use them. The opposite is also true: make driving more challenging and expensive, and give people a better, more affordable and reliable option and they’re more likely to use it and not drive for every errand.

Nice Urban planning 101 theory but we already have these far flung car designed suburbs that need roads to be knitted together. So this is kind of a slogan more than a real plan.

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Solving the transit problem needs to start with designing better funding: build it and they will come. That means a big cash investment now, up front to show good faith that the city is serious about fixing transit.

I'm not convinced a huge injection would change much. You can make the bus from Riverside every 5 minutes and you still need to transfer for a every 12 minute line 2 which connects with line 1 which gets you near your final destination. You can also cut fares and half and you don't change the calculus for very many people. Nevermind the vast majority of us who use transit very little aren't on board with paying another $500 a year for these improvements above despite some claims it will make for less congestion for all of us.

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Every year, we budget hundreds of millions of dollars for road widening and expansion projects. The next eight years see us spending nearly $900-million on suburban and rural roads. What if we designed for the future we need, for the climate crisis we declare? Maybe, because of better transit, we won’t need all those road projects and can save money AND make a better, more affordable, city.

Repeat of above.

Originally Posted by rocketphish

As Neil Saravanamutto wrote, while transit users are being asked to cough up $15-million through higher fares, the city budget allocates up to $22-million for Lansdowne. Is a public subsidy to sports teams and development a need or a want? What if we designed a better solution to Lansdowne with a focus on housing and public places not dependent on ticket sales.

There is some logic to this and there is sunk cost fallacy at work here a bit but if the team folds we are on the hook for a lot while we would lose the team and revenues that gives even ignoring the public good. It's certainly not going to be cheaper making the whole thing a public park surrounded by social housing.

Originally Posted by rocketphish

What if we looked at the hundreds of publicly owned lands near transit identified in the Housing Assessment Resource Tool and started building homes through innovative, creative, housing projects, like Edmonton has done. This would stimulate construction, boost the economy and build the density transit needs to be effective?

This! There are prime spots we could sell now for 10s of millions of dollars. Let's auction them off and let the market land where it wants. Put the revenue towards the LRT debt so borrow less as we finish phase 2 and pay. The bonus of TOD getting built can come later. I think there are probably 10 prime spots that could bring in $200 Million in less than a year.

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Maybe its time to make better decisions, embrace design solutions, and start creating the city we aspire to be with a vision, a goal and a plan. Maybe it’s time to make better places for the people who pay the bills.

Who are these people who pay the bills? I don't think transit users are going to win that argument.